First look: Going hands-on with the Apple Watch at an Apple retail store

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 99
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 276member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    For me seeing it live makes a big difference.  The SS versions are really a big step up from the Sport.  Throw in the sapphire screen and the extra $200 seems like a good deal.




    Honestly, I felt the exact opposite. After I tried on both, I actually preferred the more muted look of the Sport to the SS, so I went with the white band sport and I'll get a nicer band (leather or milan loop) later on. I looked at the metal color differences between the band and the sport watch and didn't think it made a big difference, and wouldn't really be noticeable. I'll double check again later, but those were my impressions.

     

    Also, beforehand, I thought I may end up with a 38mm because I feel my wrists were a bit smaller for a man, but once I tried them on, the 42 was definitely a better fit. I also think the bands fit a larger size wrist that the chart they have online represents.

    Edit: I am 6'0" and 190 lbs, but with fairly thin wrists. I tried on the $449 band and could fit 2 fingers between my wrist and the band.

     

    I had a blast trying them on (and then pre-ordering) :-)

  • Reply 82 of 99
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 276member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post





    But what about the Sapphire screen? I'd hate my Watch to have a irritating scratch on it. This is extra important considering how small the screen is, even a small scratch had cause a ton of problems. Just for the Sapphire screen alone I'd be willing to pay an extra $100. Throw in the stronger steel case and better matches with metal bands and that extra $200 seems well worth it. Especially since you are getting a metal band, if you were going leather it would make sense.

     

    I doubt I'll scratch it, but do you really think a simple scratch will cause that much issue? I've seen people use their phones with major cracks, so I don't really foresee scratches as an issue.

     

    If they had offered a sapphire screen for an extra $100, I may have thought about it - but they didn't, so I don't have to concern myself with that. And again, I put the band and the Sport watch next to each other, and the difference didn't seem far enough off for me to worry about.

     

    My $479 purchase would have turned into $715 plus another $107 (tax included) if I switched away from the sport band. So no, another 50% on top of my already luxury purchase did not seem worth it to me. :-)

     

    Maybe in 3 years or so I'll give this one to my son and I'll get a SS version.

     

    Edit: and I'm also thinking about the leather band as well instead of the Milanese.

  • Reply 83 of 99
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 803member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post





    But what about the Sapphire screen? I'd hate my Watch to have a irritating scratch on it. This is extra important considering how small the screen is, even a small scratch had cause a ton of problems. Just for the Sapphire screen alone I'd be willing to pay an extra $100. Throw in the stronger steel case and better matches with metal bands and that extra $200 seems well worth it. Especially since you are getting a metal band, if you were going leather it would make sense.

     

    The SS with sapphire is much better. And if this was the third gen watch, it would definitely be it. But for now, I am buying this fully aware that I will have to buy a new one in 1, at the most two years, even if the form factor stays the same. So I will be a good boy and forego the higher expense now so I feel better later when the watch goes in the bin. With the Sport, I feel I still get most of the value I want to get out of it, which is experiencing the Watch, being part of the experience.  In 2 gens, I buy the SS as a permanent fixture in my life.

  • Reply 84 of 99
    vmarksvmarks Posts: 762editor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrboba1 View Post

     



    Honestly, I felt the exact opposite. After I tried on both, I actually preferred the more muted look of the Sport to the SS, so I went with the white band sport and I'll get a nicer band (leather or milan loop) later on. I looked at the metal color differences between the band and the sport watch and didn't think it made a big difference, and wouldn't really be noticeable. I'll double check again later, but those were my impressions.

     

    Also, beforehand, I thought I may end up with a 38mm because I feel my wrists were a bit smaller for a man, but once I tried them on, the 42 was definitely a better fit. I also think the bands fit a larger size wrist that the chart they have online represents.

    Edit: I am 6'0" and 190 lbs, but with fairly thin wrists. I tried on the $449 band and could fit 2 fingers between my wrist and the band.

     

    I had a blast trying them on (and then pre-ordering) :-)


    The link bracelet is easy to adjust. I'd think the 42mm with the link bracelet, removing a few links. I tried to show that it's relatively easy to remove links and reconnect the bracelet. 

  • Reply 85 of 99
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 276member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by vmarks View Post

     

    The link bracelet is easy to adjust. I'd think the 42mm with the link bracelet, removing a few links. I tried to show that it's relatively easy to remove links and reconnect the bracelet. 




    Yeah - I wasn't trying to say the link was too big (he showed me how easy it was) just trying to show how big my wrist was compared to a fixed and known quantity so others could compare if they had been to an appointment and tried the stock watch on. :-)

  • Reply 86 of 99
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jume View Post



    Having a watch with battery that lasts less then a day sounds like another unnecessary pain in my life. Wont getting one unless they get at list 1 month of battery time. It's useless peace of art.



    A month? So you don't own a smartphone I would presume.

     

    Bold choice in this age, but workable I expect for many.

  • Reply 87 of 99
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 276member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    On a relatively large screen a scratch on a phone is no problem.  But a scratch on a very small screen like a watch is a huge problem because it will disfigure a huge portion of the screen.

     

    Using USA prices the large sport with Milanese loop is $550 total.  To get Steel with sport band and milanese loop is $750.   Personally I'd spend the extra $200 to get a nicer watch and more durability.  Don't forget that the Steel case will be much stronger than the Aluminum case also.


     

    I'm not really arguing any point here, but my cost (with sport bands, AppleCare and tax) would have been that much (50%) more.

     

    I had already assumed I would buy another band with it, costing another $149+tax, and I'm not really in the market to spend that much.

     

    *Get the best you can afford* is the technology mantra, right? So that's what I did. :-)

     

     

    @sflagel - that's pretty much my same argument.

  • Reply 88 of 99
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post

     

     

    The SS with sapphire is much better. And if this was the third gen watch, it would definitely be it. But for now, I am buying this fully aware that I will have to buy a new one in 1, at the most two years, even if the form factor stays the same. So I will be a good boy and forego the higher expense now so I feel better later when the watch goes in the bin. With the Sport, I feel I still get most of the value I want to get out of it, which is experiencing the Watch, being part of the experience.  In 2 gens, I buy the SS as a permanent fixture in my life.




    That's my criteria too and I think very practical, not to miss out on this change in how we interact with technology (maybe even to have an influence on its direction from here). I'm a watch wearer, love wearing watches (utility, not fashion, though I want my watches to look nice), so even if this provides no additional functionality for me, the watch aspect of it will provide lots of value, and being in on the ground floor, so to speak, will be fun. It helps to be fully integrated in the Apple ecosystem, so I'm sure I'll find enjoy the benefit of other functionality from it, but if not, a good time piece on my wrist (where I can read the time without my glasses if necessary) will tick my boxes, and later I can upgrade to the higher quality version when new functionality has been introduced, the watch becomes smaller with better battery, etc. The price per month till that time will be minuscule for something I enjoy, if you amortise the price of the watch and it has no value at the end. There are worse ways to enjoy life and spending money.

  • Reply 89 of 99
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 803member
    sog35 wrote: »
    but wouldn't you be getting more for your trade in if you bought the steel?

    The steel is $200 more than the Sport.  I'd think you would get close to $100 more for trade in with the steel.  So basically you are saving $100 over 2 years.  But if you do get a scratch on the Sport you probably can't even trade in your Sport at all or for basically nothing.

    Even if I had a plan to trade in 2 years from now I'd get the Steel because you will get a better trade in and your watch will be in much better shape when its time to sell it.

    Also lets say you bought the steel along with a steel band.  You can keep that steel band with the next Watch you buy. 

    So is it worth <$100 savings to use a less attractive watch for 2 years?

    All good thinking. But I think that 2nd/3rd gen will be so much better that trade in values will be negligible. I don't know how better, but that is what happened to iPhone vs 3G, iPad vs iPad Retina.

    Maybe include a camera? Not for pictures but for scanning IR codes, translations?

    I mean, I wear a Swatch now for everyday. So even the Sport is a step up.

    But you are right. My cautiousness may get the better of me. But I don't even know if I want to wear this thing often, or just at weekends, or always.

    Besides $ 200 is not $4 per month. It's $ 200. If you do that every month, it's $2400 per year. Or, if you want to stick with the four dollars a month thing, it's $1500, because that is what you need to have invested to earn $4 per month. What I'm trying to say, is that it's actually quite a lot of money.
  • Reply 90 of 99
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 276member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    But are you really saving much by going Sport?

     

    Large Sport - $400

    Large Steel - $600

     

    I'm pretty sure in a year or two you will get about $100 more for the Steel model.

     

    So is saving $4 a month worth having a cheaper watch?  Also keep in mind the Sport watch is much more prone to screen AND case damage. So the savings after trade in might be even LESS than $100. Also the Sport watch will be extremely common compared to the Steel so I'm pretty sure this will hurt Sport resale prices.

     

    personally I think I'm going to go with the Large Steel with Sport ban for $600.  I'll probably buy a leather or metal ban.  The great thing is the I can still use the metal/leather ban when I trade in to the next generation watch.

     

    I think paying $75-$100 more for the Steel watch after trade in for 2 years of use is a great deal


     

    I'm surprised you haven't gone the "cup of coffee" route, so common to sales types who try to guilt you into expanding your budget.

     

    Would I have loved to splurge for the upfront costs of an extra $235 (watch, Applecare, tax) to get the better watch? You bet your ass I would have. But I can't.

     

    I'd also love to get the top of the line MBP for the cost of a cup of coffee a day for the next 3 years, but it just don't fit when you have to pay for it all up front ... or incur finance charges, which would eat away at your hypothetical profits you show above. What if I can't pay off that extra $235 over the next 2 years? Then it turns into another $23/year of that lost profit you show, if you have a good interest rate - possibly double or 2.5x that if not. What it if holds on for 5 years at 20% interest? Then one has made an egregious financial mistake.

     

    It's all about the situation everyone is in and our projected utility versus the outlay of money to achieve it. Ours are not the same, and you should be able to respect that.

  • Reply 91 of 99
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    But are you really saving much by going Sport?

     

    Large Sport - $400

    Large Steel - $600

     

    I'm pretty sure in a year or two you will get about $100 more for the Steel model.

     

    So is saving $4 a month worth having a cheaper watch?  Also keep in mind the Sport watch is much more prone to screen AND case damage. So the savings after trade in might be even LESS than $100. Also the Sport watch will be extremely common compared to the Steel so I'm pretty sure this will hurt Sport resale prices.

     

    personally I think I'm going to go with the Large Steel with Sport ban for $600.  I'll probably buy a leather or metal ban.  The great thing is the I can still use the metal/leather ban when I trade in to the next generation watch.

     

    I think paying $75-$100 more for the Steel watch after trade in for 2 years of use is a great deal




    That's a very good question and good points too. The problem is that I like the darker case, so the one I want (in SS) is the Space Black Case, which is £949, compared to £339 for the Space Grey Aluminium Case in the Sport version. I realise that the majority of the price difference is the band they've paired with the SS, but it also is probably the nicest looking one. I would rather have the sapphire crystal as it sounds like it'd be more durable, since I've replaced more than one watch crystal over the years, but it's just such a big jump in price I'm trying to be practical for version 1.

     

    Who knows, I may change my mind, I'm not making any final decision until I've had a chance to see one in person and also I wanted to see what others have to say when they start to receive theirs next week. I'm not in a huge hurry to buy one, given I've missed the early window, I'm happy to wait until the first ones get theirs, post their impressions, play with them for a bit and give us feedback, then I'll decide.

  • Reply 92 of 99
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post



    Maybe include a camera? Not for pictures but for scanning IR codes, translations?

     

    I think there will be a FaceTime camera added by the 3rd Gen. I don't think that will be a priority for the 2nd Gen, especially being so close to the failed Google Glass which creeped people out. But I hadn't thought about scanning codes. The watch would make that ideal. So maybe it will make it into the 2nd Gen. watch ... I do see FaceTime being a big deal on the watch, but I think battery life will dictate the inclusion.

     

    I'm not really sure how you'd use a top mounted camera to scan codes though. you'd lose your viewfinder the minute you point it at anything, but then again, people did pretty well taking selfies before the the front camera showed up on the iPhone. 

     

    But now that I think about it, this explains why there is a substantial frame around the watch display instead of going to the edge ... more than enough room to add a camera later.

  • Reply 93 of 99
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 276member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    But you are still not factoring trade in value which is an important variable.

     

    In 2 years I think the Sport will get $100 trade in and the Steel $200.  So you are actually only saving $100.

     

    But if your Sport watch gets any damage, which is very likely since its made of Alum/Glass than you will probably only get $50.  So your grand total saving is only $50 before tax.

     

    Is that worth it?  depends on the person.  $50 over 2 years is about $2 a month.  And it this zero interest rate economy that $50 in a bank is yielding basically zero.


     

    Sure I did. If I buy the SS watch $715 as opposed to the 480 I paid for the Sport. If 480 was my budget, then I have to finance the other 235 (round it down to 200 for ease of calculations.)

    If I cannot pay this 200 off (as in it goes on credit on top of a balance and does not get paid off), at 10% interest over 2 years, that is an additional $40 I have "spent".

     

    So lets go with your 200 and $50 numbers. So I would save $50 over 2 years, but again, only if I have enough to buy it outright anyways.

    At 10% interest over 2 years, add $40. Now we are at 90.

    If it's 20% interest, that's $80, so now $130 in extra cost.

     

    So instead of my $480 free and clear and making $50 at the end, I now have to pay 715 plus another $40-80 in interest charges just to clear $200 at the end of 2 years. ($430 vs 555-595) And on top of that, the $200 made now doesn't even cover the total payback of credit, only the initial principle, so now I have to come up with even more money to pay it off, which may take even more time and incur more interest charges.

     

    Simply put, your calculations don't always work.

     

    * $480 and $715 are actual numbers for me, purchasing the watch with a sport band, AppleCare, and paying local sales tax.

     

    PS - I generally don't end up trading in my Apple gear, I end up using them until they drop dead, or my kids do.

    My device history:

    iPhone 4: dead

    iPhone 5: daughter

    iPhone 6: me

    iPad 1: wife

    iPad 3: me

     

    I also currently use a late 2008 Aluminum Macbook with a couple upgrades, currently worth about $40 on the free market. I may upgrade in 2017.

  • Reply 94 of 99
    pistispistis Posts: 247member
    sog35 wrote: »
    credit card interest does change everything.

    Thanks for paying for my watch , I bought apple at a basis of $58 it has more than paid for my watch , iPad and Mac book pro. Never ever buy tech with credit cards you end up paying 2to 3 times the initial price. Perhaps I should buy some more visa stock?
  • Reply 95 of 99
    tobiwantobiwan Posts: 73member
    sog35 wrote: »
    But even if the trade in values plummet than that would be true of the sport also.

    I'm just guessing here but I think in 2 years you would be able to trade in your sport for $100 and the steel for $200.  So you would have saved a grand total of $100.  But keep in mind if your Sport has dings and scratches (which is very likely because of the alum/glass build) you will probably only get $50 back.  So you would save only $50.

    Is that worth it?  Depends on the person.

    I also prefer the space gray which is much less than the SS space black due to the band. So sport is the better way to go for me. Add applecare so when 2 years is about up I can get a new battery or possibly watch depending how they do it for free. Also that covers possible damage.

    I really think when I get a gen3 SS in two years I will keep my sport for exercising running and wearing places the SS is too nice for. Also one will always be charged and possibly be slept with.

    All good points and to each their own. Plus we really don't know how ion and aluminum will hold up. We may be pleasantly surprised.
  • Reply 96 of 99

    Somewhere I heard that watch could be linked easily to I-phone and through watch we can have all of the accessibility of the phone. I just don't know about this watches more features and prize so anyone will help me out of t??

  • Reply 97 of 99
    waterrocketswaterrockets Posts: 1,231member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pistis View Post





    Thanks for paying for my watch , I bought apple at a basis of $58 it has more than paid for my watch , iPad and Mac book pro. Never ever buy tech with credit cards you end up paying 2to 3 times the initial price. Perhaps I should buy some more visa stock?

     

    I think you mean to comment on carrying a CC balance, not merely using credit cards. I buy everything I can with credit cards, then pay it off each month, resulting in at least a 2% discount, depending on rewards programs.

  • Reply 98 of 99
    pistispistis Posts: 247member
    I think you mean to comment on carrying a CC balance, not merely using credit cards. I buy everything I can with credit cards, then pay it off each month, resulting in at least a 2% discount, depending on rewards programs.
Sign In or Register to comment.